(a)Suspension for cause. On request of the applicant, the Office may grant a suspension of action by the Office under this paragraph for good and sufficient cause. The Office will not suspend action if a reply by applicant to an Office action is outstanding. Any petition for suspension of action under this paragraph must specify a period of suspension not exceeding six months. Any petition for suspension of action under this paragraph must also include:

(1) A showing of good and sufficient cause for suspension of action; and

(2) The fee set forth in § 1.17(g), unless such cause is the fault of the Office.

(b)Limited suspension of action in a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under § 1.53(d). On request of the applicant, the Office may grant a suspension of action by the Office under this paragraph in a continued prosecution application filed under § 1.53(d) for a period not exceeding three months. Any request for suspension of action under this paragraph must be filed with the request for an application filed under § 1.53(d), specify the period of suspension, and include the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i).

(c)Limited suspension of action after a request for continued examination (RCE) under § 1.114. On request of the applicant, the Office may grant a suspension of action by the Office under this paragraph after the filing of a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114 for a period not exceeding three months. Any request for suspension of action under this paragraph must be filed with the request for continued examination under § 1.114, specify the period of suspension, and include the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i).

(d)Deferral of examination. On request of the applicant, the Office may grant a deferral of examination under the conditions specified in this paragraph for a period not extending beyond three years from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is claimed under title 35, United States Code. A request for deferral of examination under this paragraph must include the publication fee set forth in § 1.18(d) and the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i). A request for deferral of examination under this paragraph will not be granted unless:

(1) The application is an original utility or plant application filed under § 1.53(b) or resulting from entry of an international application into the national stage after compliance with § 1.495;

(2) The applicant has not filed a nonpublication request under § 1.213(a), or has filed a request under § 1.213(b) to rescind a previously filed nonpublication request;

(3) The application is in condition for publication as provided in § 1.211(c); and

(e)Notice of suspension on initiative of the Office. The Office will notify applicant if the Office suspends action by the Office on an application on its own initiative.

(f)Suspension of action for public safety or defense. The Office may suspend action by the Office by order of the Director if the following conditions are met:

(1) The application is owned by the United States;

(2) Publication of the invention may be detrimental to the public safety or defense; and

(3) The appropriate department or agency requests such suspension.

(g)Statutory invention registration. The Office will suspend action by the Office for the entire pendency of an application if the Office has accepted a request to publish a statutory invention registration in the application, except for purposes relating to patent interference proceedings under part 41, subpart D, of this title.

Effective date: The changes in this final rule take effect on May 13, 2015. Applicability date: The changes to 37 CFR 1.32, 1.46, 1.63, 1.76, and 1.175 in this final rule apply only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, 363, or 385 on or after September 16, 2012. The changes to 37 CFR 1.53(b) and (c) and 1.57(a)(4) in this final rule apply only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013.

37 CFR Parts 1, 3, 5, 11, and 41

Summary

Title I of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (“PLTIA”) amends the United States patent laws to implement the provisions of the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, July 2, 1999, (hereinafter “Hague Agreement”) and is to take effect on the entry into force of the Hague Agreement with respect to the United States. Under the Hague Agreement, qualified applicants may apply for design protection in the Contracting Parties to the Hague Agreement by filing a single, standardized international design application in a single language. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is revising the rules of practice to implement title I of the PLTIA.

2015-01-09; vol. 80 # 6 - Friday, January 9, 2015

80 FR 1346 - Changes to Patent Term Adjustment in View of the Federal Circuit Decision in Novartis v. Lee

Effective date: The changes to 37 CFR 1.703 in this final rule are effective on January 9, 2015, and the changes to 37 CFR 1.704 in this final rule are effective on March 10, 2015. Applicability date: The changes to 37 CFR 1.703 in this final rule apply to any patent granted before, on, or after January 9, 2015. 37 CFR 1.704 as adopted in this final rule applies to all original applications (other than for a design patent) filed on or after May 29, 2000, and to patents issued on such applications, except that 37 CFR 1.704(c)(12) as adopted in this final rule applies only to applications in which a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) and 37 CFR 1.114 is filed on or after March 10, 2015, and 37 CFR 1.704(c)(13) as adopted in this final rule applies only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013, and international patent applications in which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371 on or after December 18, 2013.

37 CFR Part 1

Summary

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of practice pertaining to patent term adjustment in view of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Novartis AG v. Lee. The Federal Circuit confirmed in Novartis that any time consumed by continued examination is subtracted in determining the extent to which the period of application pendency exceeds three years, regardless of when the continued examination was initiated. The Federal Circuit, however, decided that the time consumed by continued examination does not include the time after a notice of allowance, unless the Office actually resumes examination of the application after allowance. Accordingly, the Office is revising the rules of practice to provide that the time consumed by continued examination does not include the time after a notice of allowance, unless the applicant files a request for continued examination after such allowance. The Office also is revising the rules of practice to provide that the submission of a request for continued examination after any notice of allowance has been mailed will constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application and thus result in a reduction of any period of patent term adjustment. The Office is providing an exception to this patent term adjustment reduction provision for a request for continued examination filed solely to submit information cited in a patent office communication in a counterpart application that is submitted to the Office within thirty days of receipt of the patent office communication. Additionally, the Office is clarifying what papers may be submitted after a notice of allowance without the applicant being considered to have failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of the application.

Effective Date: This Interim Eligibility Guidance is effective on December 16, 2014. This Interim Eligibility Guidance applies to all applications filed before, on or after December 16, 2014. Comment Deadline Date: To be ensured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before March 16, 2015.

37 CFR Part 1

Summary

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) has prepared interim guidance (2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, called “Interim Eligibility Guidance”) for use by USPTO personnel in determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court). This Interim Eligibility Guidance supplements the June 25, 2014, Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. (June 2014 Preliminary Instructions) and supersedes the March 4, 2014, Procedure For Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws Of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products (March 2014 Procedure) issued in view of the Supreme Court decisions in Myriad and Mayo. The USPTO is seeking public comment on this Interim Eligibility Guidance along with additional suggestions on claim examples for explanatory example sets.

Effective Date: This final rule is effective on November 14, 2014. The continued prosecution application interim rule published on March 5, 2014 at 79 FR 12384 was effective on March 5, 2014.

37 CFR Part 1

Summary

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) revised and streamlined the requirements for the inventor's oath or declaration. In implementing the AIA inventor's oath or declaration provisions, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) provided that an applicant may postpone the filing of the inventor's oath or declaration until allowance if the applicant provides an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor. The rules pertaining to continued prosecution applications (which are applicable only to design applications) require that the prior nonprovisional application of a continued prosecution application be complete, which requires that the prior nonprovisional application contain the inventor's oath or declaration. The Office published an interim rule on March 5, 2014, to revise the rules pertaining to continued prosecution applications to permit the filing of a continued prosecution application even if the prior nonprovisional application does not contain the inventor's oath or declaration so long as the continued prosecution application is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor (continued prosecution application interim rule). The Office received no comments from the public in response to the continued prosecution application interim rule published on March 5, 2014. This final rule adopts as final the amendments to the rules of practice originally set forth in the continued prosecution application interim rule.

Effective Date: This final rule is effective on November 14, 2014. The prioritized examination interim rule published on March 5, 2014 at 79 FR 12386 was effective on March 5, 2014. Applicability Date: The changes to 37 CFR 1.102 apply only to applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after September 16, 2012, in which a first action has not been mailed.

37 CFR Part 1

Summary

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act includes provisions for prioritized examination of patent applications (also referred to as “Track I”), which have been implemented by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) in previous rulemakings. The Office published an interim rule on March 5, 2014 (prioritized examination interim rule), to simplify the Track I prioritized examination practice to reduce the number of requests for prioritized examination that must be dismissed. In order to enable rapid processing and examination of those applications, the previous rulemakings provided that a request for Track I prioritized examination requires, upon filing of the application, an inventor's oath or declaration and all required fees, and that the application contain no more than four independent claims, thirty total claims, and no multiple dependent claims. If a request for Track I prioritized examination failed to meet these requirements on filing, then the request was dismissed. After operating under the previous rulemakings for some time, the Office determined that the time period for meeting the identified requirements could be expanded and still enable the Office to timely examine the patent application. Hence, on March 5, 2014, the Office published the prioritized examination interim rule to expand the time period for meeting the identified requirements. The Office received no comments from the public in response. This final rule adopts as final the amendments to the rules of practice originally set forth in the prioritized examination interim rule.

Effective Date: The changes in this final rule are effective on October 22, 2014.

37 CFR Parts 1, 2, 7, 11, 41, and 42

Summary

The United States Patent and Trademark (Office) is revising the rules of practice to change the phrase Express Mail or EXPRESS MAIL® to Priority Mail Express® due to the United States Postal Service (USPS) renaming Express Mail® to Priority Mail Express® on July 28, 2013, and to make other changes to conform the nomenclature used in the rules of practice to the current nomenclature used by the USPS.

This is a list of United States Code sections, Statutes at Large, Public Laws, and Presidential Documents, which provide rulemaking authority for this CFR Part.

Effective date: The changes in this final rule take effect on May 13, 2015. Applicability date: The changes to 37 CFR 1.32, 1.46, 1.63, 1.76, and 1.175 in this final rule apply only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, 363, or 385 on or after September 16, 2012. The changes to 37 CFR 1.53(b) and (c) and 1.57(a)(4) in this final rule apply only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013.

37 CFR Parts 1, 3, 5, 11, and 41

Summary

Title I of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (“PLTIA”) amends the United States patent laws to implement the provisions of the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, July 2, 1999, (hereinafter “Hague Agreement”) and is to take effect on the entry into force of the Hague Agreement with respect to the United States. Under the Hague Agreement, qualified applicants may apply for design protection in the Contracting Parties to the Hague Agreement by filing a single, standardized international design application in a single language. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is revising the rules of practice to implement title I of the PLTIA.

Comment Deadline Date: To be ensured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before May 6, 2015. The USPTO will hold a Quality Summit on March 25 and 26, 2015 at the Madison Building, USPTO Headquarters, in Alexandria, Virginia. This Summit will be broadcast via webinar and recorded for later viewing. For webinar participants, participation in all Summit sessions, including the group brainstorming sessions, will be possible. See the Supplementary Information section for the proposed agenda. In order to best prepare for the Quality Summit, the USPTO requests that those interested in attending the Quality Summit send an email to WorldClassPatentQuality@uspto.gov indicating their planned attendance by March 18, 2015.

37 CFR Part 1

Summary

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking public input and guidance to direct its continued efforts towards enhancing patent quality. These efforts focus on improving patent operations and procedures to provide the best possible work products, to enhance the customer experience, and to improve existing quality metrics. In pursuit of these goals, the USPTO is launching a comprehensive and enhanced quality initiative. This initiative begins with a request for public comments on the set of proposals outlined in this document and will continue with a two-day “Quality Summit” with the public to discuss the outlined proposals. The conversation with the public held at this Quality Summit, complemented by written comments to these proposals, is the first of many steps toward developing a new paradigm of patent quality at the USPTO. Through an active and long-term partnership with the public, the USPTO seeks to ensure the issuance of the best quality patents and provide the best customer service possible.

2015-01-09; vol. 80 # 6 - Friday, January 9, 2015

80 FR 1346 - Changes to Patent Term Adjustment in View of the Federal Circuit Decision in Novartis v. Lee

Effective date: The changes to 37 CFR 1.703 in this final rule are effective on January 9, 2015, and the changes to 37 CFR 1.704 in this final rule are effective on March 10, 2015. Applicability date: The changes to 37 CFR 1.703 in this final rule apply to any patent granted before, on, or after January 9, 2015. 37 CFR 1.704 as adopted in this final rule applies to all original applications (other than for a design patent) filed on or after May 29, 2000, and to patents issued on such applications, except that 37 CFR 1.704(c)(12) as adopted in this final rule applies only to applications in which a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) and 37 CFR 1.114 is filed on or after March 10, 2015, and 37 CFR 1.704(c)(13) as adopted in this final rule applies only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013, and international patent applications in which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371 on or after December 18, 2013.

37 CFR Part 1

Summary

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of practice pertaining to patent term adjustment in view of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Novartis AG v. Lee. The Federal Circuit confirmed in Novartis that any time consumed by continued examination is subtracted in determining the extent to which the period of application pendency exceeds three years, regardless of when the continued examination was initiated. The Federal Circuit, however, decided that the time consumed by continued examination does not include the time after a notice of allowance, unless the Office actually resumes examination of the application after allowance. Accordingly, the Office is revising the rules of practice to provide that the time consumed by continued examination does not include the time after a notice of allowance, unless the applicant files a request for continued examination after such allowance. The Office also is revising the rules of practice to provide that the submission of a request for continued examination after any notice of allowance has been mailed will constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application and thus result in a reduction of any period of patent term adjustment. The Office is providing an exception to this patent term adjustment reduction provision for a request for continued examination filed solely to submit information cited in a patent office communication in a counterpart application that is submitted to the Office within thirty days of receipt of the patent office communication. Additionally, the Office is clarifying what papers may be submitted after a notice of allowance without the applicant being considered to have failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of the application.

Effective Date: This Interim Eligibility Guidance is effective on December 16, 2014. This Interim Eligibility Guidance applies to all applications filed before, on or after December 16, 2014. Comment Deadline Date: To be ensured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before March 16, 2015.

37 CFR Part 1

Summary

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) has prepared interim guidance (2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, called “Interim Eligibility Guidance”) for use by USPTO personnel in determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court). This Interim Eligibility Guidance supplements the June 25, 2014, Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. (June 2014 Preliminary Instructions) and supersedes the March 4, 2014, Procedure For Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws Of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products (March 2014 Procedure) issued in view of the Supreme Court decisions in Myriad and Mayo. The USPTO is seeking public comment on this Interim Eligibility Guidance along with additional suggestions on claim examples for explanatory example sets.

Effective Date: This final rule is effective on November 14, 2014. The continued prosecution application interim rule published on March 5, 2014 at 79 FR 12384 was effective on March 5, 2014.

37 CFR Part 1

Summary

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) revised and streamlined the requirements for the inventor's oath or declaration. In implementing the AIA inventor's oath or declaration provisions, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) provided that an applicant may postpone the filing of the inventor's oath or declaration until allowance if the applicant provides an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor. The rules pertaining to continued prosecution applications (which are applicable only to design applications) require that the prior nonprovisional application of a continued prosecution application be complete, which requires that the prior nonprovisional application contain the inventor's oath or declaration. The Office published an interim rule on March 5, 2014, to revise the rules pertaining to continued prosecution applications to permit the filing of a continued prosecution application even if the prior nonprovisional application does not contain the inventor's oath or declaration so long as the continued prosecution application is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor (continued prosecution application interim rule). The Office received no comments from the public in response to the continued prosecution application interim rule published on March 5, 2014. This final rule adopts as final the amendments to the rules of practice originally set forth in the continued prosecution application interim rule.

Effective Date: This final rule is effective on November 14, 2014. The prioritized examination interim rule published on March 5, 2014 at 79 FR 12386 was effective on March 5, 2014. Applicability Date: The changes to 37 CFR 1.102 apply only to applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after September 16, 2012, in which a first action has not been mailed.

37 CFR Part 1

Summary

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act includes provisions for prioritized examination of patent applications (also referred to as “Track I”), which have been implemented by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) in previous rulemakings. The Office published an interim rule on March 5, 2014 (prioritized examination interim rule), to simplify the Track I prioritized examination practice to reduce the number of requests for prioritized examination that must be dismissed. In order to enable rapid processing and examination of those applications, the previous rulemakings provided that a request for Track I prioritized examination requires, upon filing of the application, an inventor's oath or declaration and all required fees, and that the application contain no more than four independent claims, thirty total claims, and no multiple dependent claims. If a request for Track I prioritized examination failed to meet these requirements on filing, then the request was dismissed. After operating under the previous rulemakings for some time, the Office determined that the time period for meeting the identified requirements could be expanded and still enable the Office to timely examine the patent application. Hence, on March 5, 2014, the Office published the prioritized examination interim rule to expand the time period for meeting the identified requirements. The Office received no comments from the public in response. This final rule adopts as final the amendments to the rules of practice originally set forth in the prioritized examination interim rule.

Effective Date: The changes in this final rule are effective on October 22, 2014.

37 CFR Parts 1, 2, 7, 11, 41, and 42

Summary

The United States Patent and Trademark (Office) is revising the rules of practice to change the phrase Express Mail or EXPRESS MAIL® to Priority Mail Express® due to the United States Postal Service (USPS) renaming Express Mail® to Priority Mail Express® on July 28, 2013, and to make other changes to conform the nomenclature used in the rules of practice to the current nomenclature used by the USPS.

The electronic sharing of information and documents between intellectual property (IP) offices is critical for increasing the efficiency and quality of patent examination worldwide. Current examples of this sharing include the priority document exchange (PDX) program and the program by which U.S. search results are delivered to the European Patent Office (EPO). In support of electronic file sharing, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing to amend its rules of practice to include a specific provision by which an applicant can authorize the Office to give a foreign IP office access to all or part of the file contents of an unpublished U.S. patent application in order to satisfy a requirement for information imposed on a counterpart application filed with the foreign intellectual property office. Currently, for unpublished U.S. patent applications, applicants follow one regulatory provision to provide the Office with authorization for a foreign IP office to access an application-as-filed via a PDX program and follow another regulatory provision to provide the Office with authorization to share the file contents with a foreign IP office. The proposed changes to the rules will consolidate the specific provisions of the regulations by which applicants give the Office authority to provide a foreign IP office with access to an application in order to satisfy a requirement for information of the foreign IP office. Additionally, along with changes to the application data sheet (ADS) form, the proposed rule changes will simplify the process for how applicants provide the Office with the required authorization, thereby reducing the resources applicants must expend to comply with these foreign IP office requirements, and enhance the quality of patent examination.